comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - the statement of the CFJ's truth depends on an unknown state
> >within a contract
> Preventing contract escalation into gamestate ambiguity is better than
> allowing them and just preventin
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the statement of the CFJ's truth depends on an unknown state
>within a contract
Preventing contract escalation into gamestate ambiguity is better than
allowing them and just preventing wins based on them.
ais523 wrote:
> Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
I would prefer this earlier suggestion, though I don't remember whose it
was: part of the cleanup procedure is that no player can satisfy this
Winning Condition for any tortoise arising from fundamentally the same
type of paradox.
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 1:24:01 Alexander Smith wrote:
> There seems to have been quite a bit of paradox theft recently,
> so I've come up with this to try to clamp down on it.
>
> Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
>
> Amend rule 2110 to the following:
> {{{
> A tortoise is an inquir
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - it is about a situation that occured before the case was
>>filed (i.e. not arising from the case itself, and not occuring
>>after the initiation of that case)
> I don't like this cl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - it is about a situation that occured before the case was
>filed (i.e. not arising from the case itself, and not occuring
>after the initiation of that case)
I don't like this clause; it seems to me
There seems to have been quite a bit of paradox theft recently,
so I've come up with this to try to clamp down on it.
Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
Amend rule 2110 to the following:
{{{
A tortoise is an inquiry case for which the question of veracity
is UNDECIDABLE.
7 matches
Mail list logo
